Rejection of the employee's claim: pension commitment time-barred
Publication date: January 7, 2024
On 3 December 2024, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal ruled on a claim for compensation for failure to fulfil a pension commitment. The employee's claim was dismissed because it was time-barred. Both the short limitation period (five years) and the long limitation period (twenty years) have expired. On the basis of what facts and circumstances did the court reach this final verdict?
Letter from 1998
The employee states before the court that the employer originally promised him a final pay scheme when he switched to another company within the same group on 1 January 1997. This scheme was then allegedly converted into a defined contribution scheme without his consent, which he claimed led to a pension deficit.
On 6 January 1998, the pension administrator indeed announced by letter that a scheme different from the final pay scheme will apply retroactively as of 1 January 1997. Despite the fact that the accompanying calculation showed that his pension was very likely to be more favourable, the employee did not agree with this change and was convinced that there was a pension breach.
Employee’s position
According to the court, the employee should have been expected to investigate further at the time and concretize his claim or respond in writing (by means of a subpoena). The court takes into account that the employee had a high position, had been consciously concerned with his pension since 1997 and was free to express his dissatisfaction with his pension.
Registration form from 2004
Insofar as the employee should not have been expected to take sufficient concrete action as early as 1998, the court held that this was the case at least as of 2004.. In that year, it became (again) clear to the employee that he was participating in an defined contribution scheme when he signed the registration form of the new pension provider Zwitserleven during a meeting with the pension advisor. Even then, the employee was convinced that he would suffer damage. However, no action was taken in 2004.
Employer's appeal to a limitation period is not unacceptable
Finally, the court finds that the employer's appeal to the limitation periods is not unacceptable by standards of reasonableness and fairness. The court emphasizes that it should be cautious when applying these articles of law. The fact that the employee has not raised the alarm before is in his (risk) sphere.
Practical lesson
This case highlights the importance for employees to take timely action in the event of disputes about pension agreements. An employee who suspects that a pension commitment is not being fulfilled must take steps within the statutory (limitation) deadlines instead of sitting still.
